Opinion | Op-Ed Contributor
Susan Rice: When America No Longer Is a Global Force for Good
Susan Rice
The New York Times, December 21, 2017
President
Trump’s National Security Strategy marks a dramatic departure from the
plans of his Republican and Democratic predecessors, painting a dark,
almost dystopian portrait of an “extraordinarily dangerous” world
characterized by hostile states and lurking threats. There is scant
mention of America’s unrivaled political, military, technological and
economic strength, or the opportunities to expand prosperity, freedom
and security through principled leadership — the foundation of American
foreign policy since World War II.
In
Mr. Trump’s estimation, we live in a world where America wins only at
others’ expense. There is no common good, no international community, no
universal values, only American values. America is no longer “a global
force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy, or a “shining
city on a hill,” as in President Reagan’s vision. The new strategy
enshrines a zero-sum mentality: “Protecting American interests requires
that we compete continuously within and across these contests, which are
being played out in regions around the world.” This is the hallmark of
Mr. Trump’s nationalistic, black-and-white “America First” strategy.
But
the world is actually gray, and Mr. Trump’s strategy struggles to draw
nuanced distinctions. Throughout, China and Russia are conflated and
equated as parallel adversaries. In fact, China is a competitor, not an
avowed opponent, and has not illegally occupied its neighbors. Russia,
as the strategy allows, aggressively opposes NATO, the European Union,
Western values and American global leadership. It brazenly seized
Georgian and Ukrainian territory and killed thousands of innocents to
save a dictator in Syria. Russia is our adversary, yet Mr. Trump’s
strategy stubbornly refuses to acknowledge its most hostile act:
directly interfering in the 2016 presidential election to advantage Mr.
Trump himself.
On
China and Russia, I suspect the White House realists, to escape the
embarrassment of a strategy that ignored Russia’s hostile behavior,
agreed to lump China with Russia and almost always mention China first,
to placate their nationalist colleagues who hate China but admire
Russia. The result is a flawed analysis that may actually drive Russia
and China closer together.
In
several respects, including nuclear weapons and arms control, weapons
of mass destruction, counterterrorism, intelligence, cyberthreats, space
policy, unfair trade practices and theft of intellectual property, the
strategy falls within the bipartisan mainstream of United States
national security policy, differing little from that of a more
traditional Republican president. In other areas, it helpfully corrects
this administration’s wavering course, as in its unequivocal embrace of
United States allies and partners and reaffirmation of our Article V
commitment to defend NATO. The strategy recognizes the threat from
pandemics and biohazards and the importance of strengthening global
health security. And it maintains at least a nominal commitment to
women’s empowerment and providing generous humanitarian assistance.
But
the nationalists around him succeeded in enshrining Mr. Trump’s harsh
anti-immigration policies, from the border wall to ending family
preferences and limiting refugee admissions. They reprised their paean
to bilateral over multi-nation trade agreements and trumpeted the
abrogation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would help check
China’s economic and strategic expansionism in Asia. The result is an
insular, ideological treatment of our complex world, substantially
unimpaired by facts and dismissive of United States interests.
The
plan also glaringly omits many traditional American priorities. It
fails to mention the words “human rights” or “extreme poverty”; there is
no talk of higher education, combating H.I.V.-AIDS or seeking a lasting
peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Absent, too, is any discussion
of people under 30 (who make up over 50 percent of the world’s
population), of civil society or of the value of promoting democracy and
universal rights. Gone is “climate change” and its threat to American
national security. Neither is there any expression of concern for the
rights of the oppressed, especially L.G.B.T. people. These omissions
undercut global perceptions of American leadership; worse, they hinder
our ability to rally the world to our cause when we blithely dismiss the
aspirations of others.
The
plan also contains some true howlers. It heralds diplomacy, yet Mr.
Trump and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, have starved the State
Department of resources, talent and relevance. The strategy lauds the
“free press,” yet Mr. Trump routinely trashes our most respected news
outlets as “fake news,” threatening their personnel and operations. And
it claims the United States “rejects bigotry and oppression and seeks a
future built on our values as one American people”; yet the president
has denigrated women, used race-baiting language and been hesitant to
criticize anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi extremists. One wonders how seriously
to take a document that so starkly diverges from the president’s own
words and deeds.
These
contradictions matter, as does the administration’s enthusiastic
embrace of a self-serving, confrontational vision of the world. National
security strategies do not always leave an enduring legacy, but they
are important articulations of an administration’s priorities —
signposts to a world that cares deeply about America’s ambitions and
interests.
The
United States’s strength has long rested not only on our unmatched
military and economy, but also on the power of our ideals. Relinquishing
the nation’s moral authority in these difficult times will only
embolden rivals and weaken ourselves. It will make a mockery of the very
idea of America first.
Susan E. Rice (@AmbassadorRice),
the national security adviser from 2013 to 2017 and a former United
States ambassador to the United Nations, is a contributing opinion
writer.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 21, 2017, on Page A31 of the New York edition
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário